CDT: Full letter to the editor regarding Heim

My recent letter to the editor was cut-off at the half way point.  I contacted the CDT about the error and hopefully it will be corrected soon.  

Until then, here is the full letter, plus the relevant laws.

Recent letter writers to the CDT believe it was wrong for Penn State to rescind its invitation to Bruce Heim to participate in the coin-toss prior to the Penn State - Army football game.  Both writers believe that it was a simple case of guilt by association (to The Second Mile) that drove Penn State's decision. 

Both writers also appear to share the opinion of Bruce Heim, who in response to the coin-toss flap, stated The Second Mile had no culpability in the Sandusky scandal and that opinions otherwise were based on “conjecture.”

The evidence and the law proves those opinions are wrong. 

Bruce Heim was among the charity's decision makers about handling the Sandusky matter. Heim stated: “Upon receipt of the 2008 report [when Sandusky informed the board he was under investigation], it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities.”

What Heim didn’t say was that the charity kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  The charity also did not inform program participants or the public. 

The law required The Second Mile to have their plan of supervision (i.e., ban from “kid related activities”) approved by the county agency. The law also required the plan kept on file by the county until the closure of the investigation.

Those things didn’t happen. 

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009. Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 

In short, the Second Mile's plan of supervision was ineffective.

Statements that The Second Mile - or that anyone besides Sandusky - didn't have "some culpability" are simply not supported by the law or the evidence.

RAYMOND BLEHAR

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

The legal requirement for The Second Mile to put an approved plan of supervision in place follows:

§ 6303.  Definitions.

"Child-care services."  Includes any of the following:

(1)  Child day-care centers.

(2)  Group day-care homes.

(3)  Family child-care homes.

(4)  Foster homes.

(5)  Adoptive parents.

(6)  Boarding homes for children.

(7)  Juvenile detention center services or programs for delinquent or dependent children.

(8)  Mental health services for children.

(9)  Services for children with intellectual disabilities.

(10)  Early intervention services for children.

(11)  Drug and alcohol services for children.

(12)  Day-care services or programs that are offered by a school.

(13)  Other child-care services that are provided by or subject to approval, licensure, registration or certification by the department or a county social services agency or that are provided pursuant to a contract with the department or a county social services agency.

§ 6368.  Investigation of reports.

(i)  Investigation concerning a school or child-care service employee.--

(1)  Upon notification that an investigation involves suspected child abuse by a school or child-care service employee, including, but not limited to, a service provider, independent contractor or administrator, the school or child-care service shall immediately implement a plan of supervision or alternative arrangement for the individual under investigation to ensure the safety of the child and other children who are in the care of the school or child-care service.

(2)  The plan of supervision or alternative arrangement shall be approved by the county agency and kept on file with the agency until the investigation is completed.